Phase II Meeting #3
Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson
Bridge Study Advisory Committee
April 10, 2002 

Below are the minutes taken by BHJ Transportation Study Director Michael Paprocki for the Bridge Study Advisory Committee on April 10, 2002 at the Millsop Community Center, Rose Room, Weirton, WV.  This is a full list of attendance and highlights of the meeting’s discussion.

 * Denotes Delegate of the Bridge Advisory Committee
^ Denotes Alternate Delegate to the Bridge Advisory Committee

The meeting was called to order at 1:36 p.m.

• Introduction:BHJ Executive Director John Brown welcomed the attendees to the Bridge Advisory Committee meeting.  Dr. Brown asked all attendees to introduce themselves. 

• Summary of Past Meeting and Expectations:  Dr. John Brown summarized the past meeting held on March 13, 2002. He explained that the purpose of the study is to create a fundamental understanding of the existing bridge system and to avoid the “worst case” scenario that is, only the Veterans Bridge remaining as the only river crossing between Jefferson County, Ohio and Brooke County, West Virginia.  He further stated that the study must be based on established quantifiable evidence and that the baseline or “worst case” scenario is not in the best interest of the citizens of Brooke, Hancock and Jefferson Counties. 

• Review and Summary of Methodology for Analysis of Alternative Bridge Systems:  Mr. Jack Pflum of PKG Consultants was introduced to the BAC.  He was asked by members of the BAC to summarize the methodology for comparative analysis for testing the alternative bridge systems.  Mr. Pflum emphasized that the Evaluation Criteria will steer and maintain the course of the study.  He also noted that the criteria must be reasonably applied in such a manner not to “skew” the study’s results.  Mr. Pflum added that all planning assumptions incorporated into the study must be base on sound judgment with reasonable expectations. 

üüüü Significantly Exceeds the Goal

üüü  Meets or Slightly Exceeds Goal

üü   Does Not Meet Goal

• Presentation of Alternative Bridge Systems to be Analyzed:  Mr. Pflum handed out a paper titled “BHJ Ohio River Bridge System Study – Alternative Systems to be Evaluated, dated 10 April 2002.  He explained in detail how the alternative networks would be developed and related how each scenario presented will be tested.  Mr. Pflum explained that in his conversations with ODOT and WVDOT officials, neither endorses major investments for rehabilitation of either the Fort Steuben Bridge or the Market Street Bridge.  Therefore, the study will assume that it is not cost effective to expend funding for major rehabilitation of either the existing Market Street or Fort Steuben bridge structures.  Mr. Pflum then referred the BAC to the handout.  He stated that according to the consultant’s contract, 12 alternatives are to be tested for the study.  The proposal presented at this meeting suggests nine (9) scenarios be tested at this time.  This will allow for three (3) more alternatives to be evaluated if later needed.  Mr. Pflum once again emphasized that that the outcome of the study must reasonable and defendable.  He further explained that the study is expected to define a bridge system between Jefferson County and Brooke County based on sound technical judgment.  After further discussion, the BAC directed PKG to test only the first six (6) scenarios presented at this time.  In this way, the general location of a new Market Street Bridge will be defined, as well as the preferred general location for a Southern Bridge, either between Wellsburg and Follansbee or situated in Wellsburg or south of Wellsburg.  The results would then be presented to the BAC for their review at a meeting to be held later sometime in late May or June.  Mr. Pflum stated he would have to discuss this matter further with the modeling sub consultant (Burgess & Nipple) and coordinate the next meeting date with BHJ staff.  Following more discussion, the BAC then decided to add another alternative system to be tested labeled No. 10.  This scenario would include the Veterans Bridge, the best location for a Market Street Bridge, and a new Fort Steuben Bridge in its existing location with improved connections to SR 7 and WV 2. 

• Proposed Method for the Comparative Ranking of the Alternative Bridge Scenarios:  Mr. Pflum next presented a memorandum report titled “Traffic Operations Related to Capacity and Safety”.  The report defines, analyzes and makes preliminary recommendations regarding traffic operations of the three bridges and adjacent roadways.  The report indicated that although the Veterans Bridge itself has sufficient capacity for traffic operations, it appears that the bridge’s ramping network at various weave areas and intersections would approach failure if both the Fort Steuben Bridge and the Market Street Bridge were removed from the existing highway system.  This again was referred to as the “worst case” scenario.  After further deliberation, it was noted by BAC members that there was no analysis in the report regarding the length of the left turn lane on SR 7 northbound that directs traffic onto University Boulevard.  Mr. Pflum then indicated that better traffic data is needed to assess future traffic conditions with both the Fort Steuben Bridge and the Market Street Bridge closed.  He also stated that operational improvements to the Veterans Bridge approaches should not impact bridge locations tested to the south between Wellsburg and Follansbee, in Wellsburg or south of Wellsburg. 

The meeting adjourned at 3:08 p.m.  The BAC will be notified of the next meeting date.  The meeting will be held at an undetermined location in Jefferson County, OH.